It's important that White South Africans stand their ground and they are backed up globally, by everyone, because if they are forced out by any means it will create a precedent that will be used by nearly 100 countries. Unless you like the sound of 100 countries forcibly ejecting native born residents.

Too late! The fate of the white South Africans is already a lost cause.

While in Africa I often came accross Afrikaners who felt that separating the Cape Province from South Africa and creating a country peopled mostly by Whites and the so called Cape Coloured (who speak Afrikaans), could be an acceptable solution for them. Seeing that the armed forces in South Africa are still very much under White control, I wonder whether such an alternative would still be possible (without any apartheid, of course).

By the way, Cape Coloureds have an ancestry consisting of the following ethnic groups:

Thanks for the lengthy reply from which I learned new things. My comment is that whatever the reason that is making Ramphosa to appropriate the land without compensation, the end result will be the same. Economic decline.

Thanks for the lengthy reply from which I learned new things. My comment is that whatever the reason that is making Ramphosa to appropriate the land without compensation, the end result will be the same. Economic decline.

I've thought about this a lot because I'm not unsympathetic to arguments that white South Africans have ended up in control of a lot of the country's resources through historically unjust means. But this particular proposal would do a lot more harm than good.

At the same time, someone posted some sort of nonsensical thing about national IQ in this thread, and I took a look at its ranking. Having been to St. Lucia and having relatives there, the suggestion that the average IQ there is in the 60s, meaning that half the population is either borderline mentally retarded or worse, is as offensive as it is laughable.

Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

Thanks for the lengthy reply from which I learned new things. My comment is that whatever the reason that is making Ramphosa to appropriate the land without compensation, the end result will be the same. Economic decline.

I absolutely agree with you on that Cass. But alas, it is already happening. has been for some time.

1. The farm sector: there has been an incredible number of murders of farmers and their families by black criminal gangs from nearby townships on white farmers; whom are especially vulnerable because they generally live on isolated farmsteads. They usually strike at night. If the farmer detects intruders on his property and phones for help the crime has usually been committed and the culprits made their getaway before the police turn up. The terror has moved many others to sell up or walk off the land. So even without uncompensated appropriation of farmland the white farm sector is "emptying itself out". Decline in food production seems inevitable.

Apart from the effect on farmers South Africa is infamous by being one of the most violent, crime ridden countries on Earth. Their cities are no improvement on the backblocks. I believe that affluent white suburbs around Johannesburg and Cape Town are like fortified, armed camps.

2. Mining: The backbone of South African mining has long been gold and diamonds. Their diamond reserves have been depleted (diamonds now mainly come from neighbouring states like Botswana) while gold production is in steep decline.

The mines have passed their "use by" date as the costs of extracting the metal from the rock exceed the sale price of the gold. Cost versus benefit the South African mines cannot these days match those of China or Australia.

Other South African mineral riches such as coal, iron ore and platinum cannot compensate the country for the decline in the big two.

It is the misfortune of post-Apartheid South Africa that it is suffering these economic banes right when it needs minerals exports more than ever.

Thanks for the lengthy reply from which I learned new things. My comment is that whatever the reason that is making Ramphosa to appropriate the land without compensation, the end result will be the same. Economic decline.

I've thought about this a lot because I'm not unsympathetic to arguments that white South Africans have ended up in control of a lot of the country's resources through historically unjust means. But this particular proposal would do a lot more harm than good.

Apartheid ended in 1994. Since that year, Black South Africans have political power. That was more than 20 years ago. That is enough time for them to climb the economic ladder and buy over some of the farms. The fact that they failed to do so must surely be their own fault.

Thanks for the lengthy reply from which I learned new things. My comment is that whatever the reason that is making Ramphosa to appropriate the land without compensation, the end result will be the same. Economic decline.

I've thought about this a lot because I'm not unsympathetic to arguments that white South Africans have ended up in control of a lot of the country's resources through historically unjust means. But this particular proposal would do a lot more harm than good.

Apartheid ended in 1994. Since that year, Black South Africans have political power. That was more than 20 years ago. That is enough time for them to climb the economic ladder and buy over some of the farms. The fact that they failed to do so must surely be their own fault.

The whites have much better farming skills than blacks because for generations they have been given every opportunity to develop these via the patently unjust land policies of their apartheid state.

Whites have better farming skills because they came from countries where agriculture was done for several thousand years. While agriculture was unknown to many Africans. Of course Africans can learn farming skills too, but they should do it on land which is not already properly used by White farmers. Giving well farmed land to Black people will not make those Black people skilful farmers, and production will fall. If, say, a properly ran Volkswagen car factory was given to unskilled Black workers, do you think it would be properly managed and would remain competitive?...

The whites have much better farming skills than blacks because for generations they have been given every opportunity to develop these via the patently unjust land policies of their apartheid state.

Whites have better farming skills because they came from countries where agriculture was done for several thousand years. While agriculture was unknown to many Africans. Of course Africans can learn farming skills too, but they should do it on land which is not already properly used by White farmers. Giving well farmed land to Black people will not make those Black people skilful farmers, and production will fall. If, say, a properly ran Volkswagen car factory was given to unskilled Black workers, do you think it would be properly managed and would remain competitive?...

Bravo. You have just argued that redistribution of land from the whites to the blacks will not work. You are getting closer to the truth. The reason is as you say the whites have on the average better farming skills than the blacks. So redistribution of wealth from the richer to the poorer that Socialism advocates also will not work even if the people are of the same race. That's because the richer people have better skills. That's why they are richer.

Thanks for the lengthy reply from which I learned new things. My comment is that whatever the reason that is making Ramphosa to appropriate the land without compensation, the end result will be the same. Economic decline.

I've thought about this a lot because I'm not unsympathetic to arguments that white South Africans have ended up in control of a lot of the country's resources through historically unjust means. But this particular proposal would do a lot more harm than good.

Apartheid ended in 1994. Since that year, Black South Africans have political power. That was more than 20 years ago. That is enough time for them to climb the economic ladder and buy over some of the farms. The fact that they failed to do so must surely be their own fault.

Well, this is true of land seized by the whites in America, Australia, and New Zealand from the Indians, Abos and Maoris. Should we redistribute the land back to the native people? Shall we give Australia back to the Abos? I don't think so. If we did, it will cause economic calamity. I think some things done by someone's ancestors to another group's ancestors, should be forgotten once the guilty person and the victim have both passed away. Otherwise, there is no end as to how far back we go.

One of these days I hope that you will learn to distinguish between "socialism" and plain natural justice.

All I see is that one group of people with lower skills and thus poorer, demanding the property of another more skilled and hence richer group. That's classic Socialism. Power mad politicians offer this redistribution of wealth in order to attain power, money, and girls even though they must be intelligent enough to know it will lead to economic disaster. History and race are just smokescreens.

“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros